Talk:Aarex Tiaokhiao
Shall we create this page, or no? FB100Z • talk • 03:41, March 19, 2013 (UTC) Who is really Aarex Tiaokhiao? I can't find many information about that person. Ikosarakt1 (talk ^ 10:09, March 20, 2013 (UTC) :He's , a young googolsmith. Coined megotion and names for some of the higher BEAF operators. FB100Z • talk • 23:57, March 20, 2013 (UTC) ::He is just a user? http://googology.wikia.com/wiki/User_talk:Ikosarakt1?oldid=24461#omgf (omgf) Jiawhein \(a\)\(l\) 00:57, March 21, 2013 (UTC) Is it just me or is the arx function...kinda lame? It's just a naive extension of the xi function. Recent findings about Rayo(n) suggest that it's actually much more powerful than xi or arx. FB100Z • talk • 21:10, March 21, 2013 (UTC) Yes, it turns out that Arx(n) function provides only \(w^2\)-type recursion around Xi function (so \(Arx(n) \approx f_{\alpha+w^2}(n)\), where \(\alpha\) is the ordinal for the Xi function), as I decided after viewing Aarex's definition. Of course, it doesn't give us the power of Ra(n). Ikosarakt1 (talk ^ 21:21, March 21, 2013 (UTC) :My first guess was \(\alpha + \omega\) but that makes sense. Sorry Aarex, but recursing's just not gonna cut it. You need to have an understanding of computability theory to roll your own world record. FB100Z • talk • 21:27, March 21, 2013 (UTC) ::FB100Z is correct that Arx(n) is at level \(f_{\alpha + \omega}\). I agree that the function is kind of silly. The same goes for meameamealokka-arrowa. Deedlit11 (talk) 21:57, March 21, 2013 (UTC) :::xkcd-like salads aside, I am very curious about what there is after Rayo. Googologists have already ventured into a lot dangerous territory, places that cause discrete mathematicians to crawl back into their little holes and set theorists to give up and move on. But I have heard ominous predictions that, far, far out into the number line, there is something that not even we can handle. Far beyond Rayo's function, the unspeakable lurks — a beast so terrifying and powerful that even the firm ground of mathematics itself collapses with a roar into a quivering pile of ash. :::sorry i have this eccentric lovecraftian vibe today FB100Z • talk • 22:22, March 21, 2013 (UTC) ::::FB100Z, you're talking about Sbiis Saibian's post:"So some finite numbers will probably always be inaccessible to us. We know they must exist, but that's about all we can say without being self-contradictory. If it's true that we can't escape computability theory then it proves the point I was trying to make with my site: that saying we can "continue indefinitely" is not exactly true."? Konkhra talk) 10:21, March 22, 2013 (UTC). aareXXXXX His youtube account is http://www.youtube.com/user/bamboosplitter, and my jiawhein youtube has subscribed to him about for months ago. JiawheinGoogol (talk) 11:37, June 19, 2013 (UTC) Wow https://sites.google.com/site/aarexnumbers/aarexinf Wojowu showed me this. THEOREM: human brains can't deal with aarex's logic Fluoroantimonic Acid (talk) 16:21, June 30, 2015 (UTC) watching this article makes me think... will i ever have one? -- From the googol and beyond -- 23:46, September 22, 2015 (UTC)